dangerous drug was for the purpose of trafficking.
In the case
of CHAN Yuk-san & Ors V R. [1969] HKLR 27 (Full Court), it was
held, inter alia, that S.16 of the DDO Cap 134 (1964 edition) was evidentiary; that is, in given circumstances it supplied evidence of matters which would otherwise had to be strictly
proved.
That
case concerned whether
there
was sufficient
The Crown relied on
evidence to establish control by the appellant of drugs on a
lorry which he was leading in a hired car.
the presumption raised by S.16 which provided that:
"Any person who is proved to have had in his possession or custody or under his control anything whatsoever containing any dangerous drug....shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been in possession of such drug....";
similar wording
a
had which section
very
and
S.47(1)(a)
the of the current edition of
DDO.
present
case concerns
only
S.46,
effect as
Although the
it nonetheless,
is
а
presumption which is under consideration and what was held in CHAN Yuk-san's case applies. Therefore S.46 is only evidentiary
in nature.
1991.
The commencement date of the BORO was the 8th of June
From
that
day
onwards, any
and
a
all pre-existing
legislation must be interpreted in a manner that "admits of construction consistent with" it and if that is not possible, then that legislation is, "to the extent of the inconsistency",
repealed. This is so provided by S.3 of the BORO.
The trial of this case began on the 3rd of July 1991 and therefore the provisions of the BORO which affect evidential
and procedural matters are operative.
ml.
3